2020 FALL APPLICATION VENTING THREAD

[toolkitsocio]

4 minutes ago, PoliticalSociology said:

Interesting. What do you mean by this? Like you think there are employers who look at QS Sociology Rankings when making hiring decisions? I don't think that's common at all in the US. A lot of people don't even look at USNWR; they just have in their head an intuitive sense of rankings that they've built over the years.

Also, congrats on your waitlist at UNC! That's great.

There is a tendency outside US. Since the number of students getting into US is increasing, as foolish as it can be, faculty often use rankings as eliminators. This is done to show that they have recruited candidates who are in the top colleges ranked by XYZ org. Based on this they receive better rankings and fundings from their respective governments. 

[lkaitlyn]

"Safety" is all relative, and arguably does not exist for funded programs. Personally I think calling anything "safe" is a bit much, but that's just me.

[annetod]

4 minutes ago, CeXra said:

So quick question: programs between 1-25 are considered top tier schools? Can someone break down the tiers for me and what schools are considered "safety." I did a bit of research and saw that the usnews breaks things down, but they don't classify as top tier, mid tier or safety etc. I'm looking for a general consensus. 

There's a general consensus that the tiers are roughly: 1-5 is the most elite tier, then 5-15, then 15-30, then 30-45ish, then 45+. 

Or others just think of it in tens: top 10, 10-20, 20-30, and so on. But I think the first way is a little more precise. 

 

[CeXra]

3 minutes ago, annetod said:

There's a general consensus that the tiers are roughly: 1-5 is the most elite tier, then 5-15, then 15-30, then 30-45ish, then 45+. 

Or others just think of it in tens: top 10, 10-20, 20-30, and so on. But I think the first way is a little more precise. 

 

So depending on the tier, the more likely you will have a better job ( I know there are other factors but this tier thing seems to matter). Which tears are considered "safety schools"?

Edited January 29, 2020 by CeXra

[annetod]

16 minutes ago, toolkitsocio said:

I appreciate your comment and I understand the usnews ranks it that way. But given the employment trends in countries beyond US, there are colleges that stick to QS often. I totally understand the issue with this. But its not me who is constructing this, thats how it is seen outside. Hence I wrote "even UNC". Some colleges may have a rapport based on a niche area of research but its quite difficult in terms of employment. I am not comparing any colleges. Just an observation! 

I see, and perhaps that's true in some countries outside the US, I'm not sure about that for specific countries although I know Canada and the UK both are tuned into appropriate US program rankings. QS seems like a very poor way to go about it, given that those are typically more about undergrad and have nothing to do with how specific programs at the graduate level are ranked (those who rely on QS rankings would be shocked to learn that Indiana and Texas soc programs are much better than Brown and Yale, for example). 

[0102030405]

3 minutes ago, annetod said:

There's a general consensus that the tiers are roughly: 1-5 is the most elite tier, then 5-15, then 15-30, then 30-45ish, then 45+. 

Or others just think of it in tens: top 10, 10-20, 20-30, and so on. But I think the first way is a little more precise. 

 

That’s good to know!

[annetod]

Just now, CeXra said:

So depending on the tier, the more likely you will have a better job? 

"Better" is a relative term, so I'm not sure how to answer that. Someone just posted aggregate placement record scores from the past 5 years, may be worth looking at that post. 

[annetod]

3 minutes ago, CeXra said:

So depending on the tier, the more likely you will have a better job ( I know there are other factors but this tier thing seems to matter). Which tears are considered "safety schools"?

Responding to your edits: yes, placement is definitely pretty strongly correlated with ranking, but some programs are known as placing better than they're ranked (and others are the opposite). 

Safety school is a term more commonly used for applying to undergraduate institutions, they're for schools that you're fairly confident you'll be accepted, and it's hard to ever be fairly confident of acceptance to any PhD program. But it's all relative to your perception of your own status as an applicant. 

[DeadAccount]

1 hour ago, 2ms1234 said:

I only applied to 5 schools, i'm so nervous 

I also only applied to 5 schools, so I feel you. I've already decided that if I get rejected or decide my accepted programs just aren't right, I'm going to take another gap year and focus on doing an additional study and getting my research published, then reapply to even more programs. 

[CeXra]

6 minutes ago, annetod said:

Responding to your edits: yes, placement is definitely pretty strongly correlated with ranking, but some programs are known as placing better than they're ranked (and others are the opposite). 

Safety school is a term more commonly used for applying to undergraduate institutions, they're for schools that you're fairly confident you'll be accepted, and it's hard to ever be fairly confident of acceptance to any PhD program. But it's all relative to your perception of your own status as an applicant. 

Alright makes sense. I say this because in the results section I saw that a lot of the people who were rejected from lets say... the university of notre dame, stated that it was their safety. 1. I don't know why they felt the need to highlight that (as if it makes them or their rejection appear in a different light) 2. I think its a pretty great school so I don't know why there was such an attitude of "oh well, it was my safety anyway." So that's why I ask. And yeah, PhD programs are hard to get into in general but there seems to be a general consensus of what schools are safeties (as well as peoples attitudes towards them), based on what I've seen in the results section. 

[annetod]

18 minutes ago, CeXra said:

Alright makes sense. I say this because in the results section I saw that a lot of the people who were rejected from lets say... the university of notre dame, stated that it was their safety. 1. I don't know why they felt the need to highlight that (as if it makes them or their rejection appear in a different light) 2. I think its a pretty great school so I don't know why there was such an attitude of "oh well, it was my safety anyway." So that's why I ask. And yeah, PhD programs are hard to get into in general but there seems to be a general consensus of what schools are safeties (as well as peoples attitudes towards them), based on what I've seen in the results section. 

I'm also not sure why people mention that in the results page. I'll say again that "safety school" is more of a moniker for undergrad, and that it doesn't really actually mean anything. 

But I'll also say Notre Dame might be a good example related to the other discussion that was happening on here about QS rankings, and the difference between a school's reputation (typically tied to undergrad) and a specific program's reputation. Notre Dame is a perfectly good program, but it's probably a little lower ranked than many would expect given how elite the school as a whole is. For thinking about graduate program rankings in any discipline, you have to somewhat disregard the reputation of the entire school. Does that make sense?

[lkaitlyn]

46 minutes ago, CeXra said:

Alright makes sense. I say this because in the results section I saw that a lot of the people who were rejected from lets say... the university of notre dame, stated that it was their safety. 1. I don't know why they felt the need to highlight that (as if it makes them or their rejection appear in a different light) 2. I think its a pretty great school so I don't know why there was such an attitude of "oh well, it was my safety anyway." So that's why I ask. And yeah, PhD programs are hard to get into in general but there seems to be a general consensus of what schools are safeties (as well as peoples attitudes towards them), based on what I've seen in the results section. 

Just because something isn't first in the (very subjective) rankings doesn't mean it's not a great program. I still maintain that anyone who calls a program safe doesn't realize the importance of fit and having a genuine interest in what the program has to offer, just like the people who apply to programs that are ranked highly just because of the ranking. What's the point of applying somewhere if it couldn't genuinely support you and make you happy? Or if you don't even know who you might want to work with there? I really don't understand.

Also, what I've gathered in my years of lurking, including this year, is that there are many amazing applicants and fewer funded spots that exist in comparison. And so much of it is totally outside of our control. It's easier to think we can control the process or predict the outcome than accept we might be good enough, smart enough, interesting enough — but not get in because X faculty member doesn't have room for new students, or the committee was feeling grumpy when they happened to discuss your app, or someone with a slightly better fit just so happened to apply the same year, or something else random.

You're all worth it, and those fortunate enough to have acceptances can and should be proud of anywhere they get in! It's a huge accomplishment.

[PoliticalSociology]

6 minutes ago, lkaitlyn said:

Just because something isn't first in the (very subjective) rankings doesn't mean it's not a great program. I still maintain that anyone who calls a program safe doesn't realize the importance of fit and having a genuine interest in what the program has to offer, just like the people who apply to programs that are ranked highly just because of the ranking. What's the point of applying somewhere if it couldn't genuinely support you and make you happy? Or if you don't even know who you might want to work with there? I really don't understand.

I can't speak for everyone, but I would call a couple of my selections "safety" schools, just in the sense that they were schools I'd be happy to attend and where I thought I had the best chance of acceptance. I already got a positive result from one program, which is great and makes me feel "safe" for the rest of admissions season ?

My guess would be that a lot of people just call the least competitive 1-3 schools they applied to "safety", whether they would guess they have a 10% or 90% chance of acceptance. And yeah, I think it's a term people are used to from undergrad, though I don't know the exact etymology.

[quietsoc]

1 hour ago, CeXra said:

So quick question: programs between 1-25 are considered top tier schools? Can someone break down the tiers for me and what schools are considered "safety." I did a bit of research and saw that the usnews breaks things down, but they don't classify as top tier, mid tier or safety etc. I'm looking for a general consensus. 

The "general lore" is that if you want to work at a top 10 school, go to a top 10 school; if you want to work at a top 20, go to a top 20; etc. etc. Obviously this is incredibly case dependent, as ANY academic job is incredibly difficult to get today, no matter where you come from, and vary so much based on niche and fit. And, given the intense, almost absurd selection process to even get into any of these programs, you...can't really define any as safety. And even job placement has little to say on departmental strengths, or the general prosperity of the graduates from the program--the fact that that is based off of placement into academic jobs is absolutely inane in itself, given as a PhD is a training to be a researcher, and there are so many avenues for that that people exclude because they aren't "prestigious." 

Sorry for the rant, haha. I hope this answered your question at least a bit! 

[lkaitlyn]

18 minutes ago, PoliticalSociology said:

I can't speak for everyone, but I would call a couple of my selections "safety" schools, just in the sense that they were schools I'd be happy to attend and where I thought I had the best chance of acceptance. I already got a positive result from one program, which is great and makes me feel "safe" for the rest of admissions season ?

My guess would be that a lot of people just call the least competitive 1-3 schools they applied to "safety", whether they would guess they have a 10% or 90% chance of acceptance. And yeah, I think it's a term people are used to from undergrad, though I don't know the exact etymology.

Yeah. We obviously have schools we're more likely to get into than others but in undergrad admissions, safety schools are schools you have a 95% chance of getting into (and I help kids apply to college so I'm used to that terminology). I wouldn't say that about any program that I want to fund me,  but if that's what people mean, fine. It was just confusing.

[CeXra]

1 hour ago, annetod said:

I'm also not sure why people mention that in the results page. I'll say again that "safety school" is more of a moniker for undergrad, and that it doesn't really actually mean anything. 

But I'll also say Notre Dame might be a good example related to the other discussion that was happening on here about QS rankings, and the difference between a school's reputation (typically tied to undergrad) and a specific program's reputation. Notre Dame is a perfectly good program, but it's probably a little lower ranked than many would expect given how elite the school as a whole is. For thinking about graduate program rankings in any discipline, you have to somewhat disregard the reputation of the entire school. Does that make sense?

Makes sense. For me, I applied to schools based on faculty and research fit. So I am praying for the best. I don't really care about ranking, or I should say that I applied to my prospective schools not having ranking in mind. So I am just hoping for the best. I just brought this topic up because I find it weird how many times I saw "safety" etc. Like now that I looked at it, I applied to UMD but Rutgers is a better fit for me, so if I happen to get into both, I am more inclined to choose Rutgers.  I applied to a few more schools, but this is an example. 

[CeXra]

38 minutes ago, lkaitlyn said:

Just because something isn't first in the (very subjective) rankings doesn't mean it's not a great program. I still maintain that anyone who calls a program safe doesn't realize the importance of fit and having a genuine interest in what the program has to offer, just like the people who apply to programs that are ranked highly just because of the ranking. What's the point of applying somewhere if it couldn't genuinely support you and make you happy? Or if you don't even know who you might want to work with there? I really don't understand.

Also, what I've gathered in my years of lurking, including this year, is that there are many amazing applicants and fewer funded spots that exist in comparison. And so much of it is totally outside of our control. It's easier to think we can control the process or predict the outcome than accept we might be good enough, smart enough, interesting enough — but not get in because X faculty member doesn't have room for new students, or the committee was feeling grumpy when they happened to discuss your app, or someone with a slightly better fit just so happened to apply the same year, or something else random.

You're all worth it, and those fortunate enough to have acceptances can and should be proud of anywhere they get in! It's a huge accomplishment.

Agreed. I think research/faculty fit should be the priority decision when applying to schools. I can see how rank is a positive addition but it shouldn't be a primary motivation. 

[CeXra]

9 minutes ago, quietsoc said:

The "general lore" is that if you want to work at a top 10 school, go to a top 10 school; if you want to work at a top 20, go to a top 20; etc. etc. Obviously this is incredibly case dependent, as ANY academic job is incredibly difficult to get today, no matter where you come from, and vary so much based on niche and fit. And, given the intense, almost absurd selection process to even get into any of these programs, you...can't really define any as safety. And even job placement has little to say on departmental strengths, or the general prosperity of the graduates from the program--the fact that that is based off of placement into academic jobs is absolutely inane in itself, given as a PhD is a training to be a researcher, and there are so many avenues for that that people exclude because they aren't "prestigious." 

Sorry for the rant, haha. I hope this answered your question at least a bit! 

Makes sense! It helps. Thank you. 

[annetod]

15 minutes ago, CeXra said:

Makes sense. For me, I applied to schools based on faculty and research fit. So I am praying for the best. I don't really care about ranking, or I should say that I applied to my prospective schools not having ranking in mind. So I am just hoping for the best. I just brought this topic up because I find it weird how many times I saw "safety" etc. Like now that I looked at it, I applied to UMD but Rutgers is a better fit for me, so if I happen to get into both, I am more inclined to choose Rutgers.  I applied to a few more schools, but this is an example. 

Well for your specific example, those two programs are nearly identical in ranking, hence why it's useful to think about ranking in tiers.

[annetod]

12 minutes ago, CeXra said:

Agreed. I think research/faculty fit should be the priority decision when applying to schools. I can see how rank is a positive addition but it shouldn't be a primary motivation. 

I'll be a dissenting voice here, because rank is (by far) my primary motivation, since I am already thinking about the type of job I want to get after the PhD, which is a job as a professor at an R1 university.

And I posted these a week or two ago, but these threads I found show how difficult it is to get an R1 job at a program outside the top 20...only 21% of graduates in programs ranked 20-30 got an R1 job and 12% of graduates at programs in the 30-40 ranking. Those are very low numbers, and for me, making such an investment time and finance-wise in getting a PhD, everything I do will revolve around getting as good of a job as I can get. Everyone's ideas of a "good job" are different, but for those who want to be a professor at a research-oriented university, I think it makes a lot of sense to primarily care about program ranking and placement record.

https://www.socjobrumors.com/topic/job-placement-records-for-programs-ranked-20-30-31

https://www.socjobrumors.com/topic/job-placement-records-for-programs-ranked-30-40-way-too-long-post

[CeXra]

41 minutes ago, annetod said:

I'll be a dissenting voice here, because rank is (by far) my primary motivation, since I am already thinking about the type of job I want to get after the PhD, which is a job as a professor at an R1 university.

And I posted these a week or two ago, but these threads I found show how difficult it is to get an R1 job at a program outside the top 20...only 21% of graduates in programs ranked 20-30 got an R1 job and 12% of graduates at programs in the 30-40 ranking. Those are very low numbers, and for me, making such an investment time and finance-wise in getting a PhD, everything I do will revolve around getting as good of a job as I can get. Everyone's ideas of a "good job" are different, but for those who want to be a professor at a research-oriented university, I think it makes a lot of sense to primarily care about program ranking and placement record.

https://www.socjobrumors.com/topic/job-placement-records-for-programs-ranked-20-30-31

https://www.socjobrumors.com/topic/job-placement-records-for-programs-ranked-30-40-way-too-long-post

Makes sense. 

Edited January 30, 2020 by CeXra

[lkaitlyn]

Congrats to the Berkeley admits!

[passere]

So my UCLA decision letter was actually available from their status check link (available on their "steps to apply" page) at least 1.5 days before it was posted to my application portal. I was checking for it after the unofficial decision email I got 2 weeks ago. I found the decision letter Sunday, but I didn't get the email to check the portal where we submitted applications until Tuesday. The letter on my portal is even dated 1/28, while the one I downloaded Sunday is dated 1/26. Do any other graduate colleges have independent status checking tools like this?

Edited January 30, 2020 by passere

[2ms1234]

Tbh i've been really surprised at the amount of people applying to sociology PhD programs.... there weren't that many soc majors at my school lol so I didn't think it was so popular

[DeadAccount]

Based on the conversation between a few people earlier, I thought I would post this article. It's a pretty interesting little piece on who hires whom when it comes to sociology. The author finds that the "if you want to work top 10, go to a top 10 school, if you want to work top 20, go to a top 20 school" holds true for the most part. 

https://scatter.wordpress.com/2018/01/08/who-hires-whom/